Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Regulating Interior Landmarks: New York Court Says Duties Don't End
What powers does the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) have to require a building owner to maintain a mechanical clock located in the interior of a building? In Save America's Clocks, Inc. v. City of New York, 2017 WL 5969265, that issue generated a 3-2 division in New York's Appellate Division, First Department, with the majority holding that the Commission had power to require maintenance of the clock, and to require public access to it.
In 1989, the LPC designated a mechanical clock located in a gallery at 346 Broadway as an interior landmark. At the time, the building was owned by the City of New York, and the clock was maintained by a city worker, who would wind, oil and maintain the clock, and who gave weekly tours to members of the public. In 2013, the city sold the building to a private owner with a plan to repurpose the building for a combination of retail and residential hotel uses, and a community facility used for a digital media arts center. The deed indicated that the purchase was subject to the 1989 notice of landmark designation.
The following year, the new owner of the building applied to the LPC for a certificate of appropriateness (COA) to enable conversion of the clocktower space into a triplex private apartment, to disconnect the mechanical mechanism of the clock, and to electrify it. At the public hearing, a variety of LPC commissioners expressed misgivings about the proposal, but the LPC counsel informed the commissioners that the LPC did not have power under the Landmarks Law to require interior-designated spaces to remain public, or to require the clock mechanism to remain operable. In light of the opinion by Counsel, the LPC approved the COA.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?